I started writing a comment responding to things you said, there.
Then I noticed that nothing in your comment was actually responsive to my comment. Hm.
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if I were to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
That seems like a non sequitur, and is definitely not at all a response to what I asked.
It would be as if—to return to the widgets analogy—I asked you to demonstrate your amazing widget, and you started telling me how great it would be if I made a widget of my own. I hope you can see how that might not quite be the most satisfying response.
Edit: This part…
A lot of things that previously sounded kind of mystical or incoherent will suddenly change meaning and be made of obviousness to you. And some of them really, really, really, really matter.
seems ripe for examples. You need not even tell us what amazing new insights you have gained; at least enumerate a few of these previously-confusing things which are now laid bare to you (and, preferably, tell us why they matter).
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if I were to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
This doesn’t strike me as much of a non-sequitur. At least the first part. Assuming that the benefits of the thing Val is describing are similarly for different people, then you getting benefit X after learning it, has a strong implication that Val got benefit X after learning it, and both are direct evidence for “you will benefit if you put effort into learning/engaging-with this”.
You might still have found his arguments weak, but at least the specific thing you describe doesn’t seem to fall into the specific category of “non-sequitur”.
Ah, no. I was just responding to these two paragraphs in isolation.
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if Iwere to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
That seems like a non sequitur, and is definitely not at all a response to what I asked.
While obviously context is always important, this comment of mine should be parsable without any knowledge of Val’s original comment.
(And as such might also not be super valuable. The thing that generated this comment was more the part of my brain that goes through a proof/argument step-by-step and analyses its internal logic, and not the part of my brain that was trying to parse the larger context of the conversation.)
Then, I confess I am having trouble grasping your point.
You don’t think that “let me tell what you will get from this” is a non-sequitur in response to “show me what you got from this”? I think it is… but, perhaps reasonable people can differ on this. It is, in any case, a very unsatisfying sort of response, even if it isn’t literally a non sequitur.
(There is also the fact that even as I try to think of just what specific benefits Valentine has made reference to, I find it hard to pin them down. Perhaps someone might make a concise list?)
Edit: It seems like you edited your comment shortly after posting, to add the second paragraph? Or did I just miss it the first time I read? Anyway, I retract the “trouble grasping your point”, in light of that, but the rest of my comment stands.
I started writing a comment responding to things you said, there.
Then I noticed that nothing in your comment was actually responsive to my comment. Hm.
I asked you to demonstrate what you know, or understand, or can do, now that you’ve achieved whatever-it-is. But you responded by talking about what amazing (but, of course, hard to verbalize) things would happen for me if I were to achieve this thing (or, worse, not even what would happen as a result of achieving the thing, but reasons I allegedly already want this thing—without knowing it).
That seems like a non sequitur, and is definitely not at all a response to what I asked.
It would be as if—to return to the widgets analogy—I asked you to demonstrate your amazing widget, and you started telling me how great it would be if I made a widget of my own. I hope you can see how that might not quite be the most satisfying response.
Edit: This part…
seems ripe for examples. You need not even tell us what amazing new insights you have gained; at least enumerate a few of these previously-confusing things which are now laid bare to you (and, preferably, tell us why they matter).
This doesn’t strike me as much of a non-sequitur. At least the first part. Assuming that the benefits of the thing Val is describing are similarly for different people, then you getting benefit X after learning it, has a strong implication that Val got benefit X after learning it, and both are direct evidence for “you will benefit if you put effort into learning/engaging-with this”.
You might still have found his arguments weak, but at least the specific thing you describe doesn’t seem to fall into the specific category of “non-sequitur”.
Hm, are you saying that this part
… was intended to be read as a list of benefits that I would get, and Valentine has gotten, from his achievement?
I did not read it that way, but if your reading was the intended one, then indeed, that is the sort of thing I meant.
Valentine, could you clarify?
Ah, no. I was just responding to these two paragraphs in isolation.
While obviously context is always important, this comment of mine should be parsable without any knowledge of Val’s original comment.
(And as such might also not be super valuable. The thing that generated this comment was more the part of my brain that goes through a proof/argument step-by-step and analyses its internal logic, and not the part of my brain that was trying to parse the larger context of the conversation.)
Then, I confess I am having trouble grasping your point.
You don’t think that “let me tell what you will get from this” is a non-sequitur in response to “show me what you got from this”? I think it is… but, perhaps reasonable people can differ on this. It is, in any case, a very unsatisfying sort of response, even if it isn’t literally a non sequitur.
(There is also the fact that even as I try to think of just what specific benefits Valentine has made reference to, I find it hard to pin them down. Perhaps someone might make a concise list?)
Edit: It seems like you edited your comment shortly after posting, to add the second paragraph? Or did I just miss it the first time I read? Anyway, I retract the “trouble grasping your point”, in light of that, but the rest of my comment stands.
Ah, yes. I edited. I usually omit the explicit “edit” if I do it less than five minutes after posting, but I guess this time that was the wrong call.